Emotions as Tools... - Page 2 - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

veinglory · 08-12-03

why? I don't believe in the mind or soul -- ergo I don't believe that I have either. or was my grammar just really bad there -- it wouldn't be the first time...

Soulfull · 08-12-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

in my personal opnion, i believe there should be another characteristic of philosophy other than mind and body, that being emotions.....they too have there own seperate "essence" when one thinks about it....um, i remeber reading a book called the The Moral Animal for a course in desire i was taking; anyway, it was suggesting that emotions were a basic drive behind many actions...yet, only primary emotions.....for example, as humans we can diferentiate between instinct and thought....both have similar objectives (a means to an end) yet thought requires more....so goes for emotions....for example, certain species do not feel desire to eat, rather they just do; however, that certain animal may have fear....or, is this too instinctual? anyway, emotions are far too complex, more so for a human (since our emotions are like our mind, far too advanced for other animals).....so, it almost comes into questioning.....are the mind and emotions connected?

Cool, I had to check the nic twice, 6(sic)6, to make sure it really was you. Yeah, for sure, I can identify with a connection between mind and emotions. I'm assuming you differentiate between mind and brain?

sixxx(sic)six · 08-13-03

most definately.....i am somewhat of a dualist.....believing in mind and body.....as i have learned it, and thought it to be, scientist have yet to connect the mind to the body, though it has something to do with the brain......anyway, i think chacracterizing the emotions scientifically is too broad....i think there is a philosophy behind it, have always believed it, and someday hope to justify it...

veinglory · 08-13-03

Speaking as a scientist I feel no need for the idea of mind at all -- it has no physical existence. It is a name we use for the way a person behaves and experiences the world -- both of which are done by our body not some ghosty thing..

errantrogue · 08-13-03

so wherein does the ego, the self, lie?

veinglory · 08-13-03

Why can't a physical body *be* a self instead of *have* one?

sixxx(sic)six · 08-14-03

if you believe as you believe vein, then how does one indeed explain consciousness? how can we explain that we even have bodies......besides, science even admits that the "mind" does not seem physical......anyway, there is no denying....existence exists on 2 planes: physical and metaphysical.....physical: reality, metaphysical: dreams......and it is in the metaphysical which is where the mind is believed to be

veinglory · 08-14-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

if you believe as you believe vein, then how does one indeed explain consciousness? how can we explain that we even have bodies......besides, science even admits that the "mind" does not seem physical......anyway, there is no denying....existence exists on 2 planes: physical and metaphysical.....physical: reality, metaphysical: dreams......and it is in the metaphysical which is where the mind is believed to be

The physical body is conscious -- not some ghostly mind thing inside the physical body. As I said -- why can't consciousness be a property of the physical body?

Speaking as a psychologist 'science' never agrees on anything. Some scientists use the 'mind' in their explanations, many (most?) do not.

What does the 'mind' do that can't simply be called a property of the corporeal brain and body?

Dreams are reflect in ECGs of the brain. The occur in the body as an action of our cells.

Some people are dualist, some are materialist -- materialism is currently the dominant position in science.

Soulfull · 08-14-03

The fact that thoughts and emotions can't be measured and are so unpredictable would give evidence that they are influenced by more then chemical reactions and that the mind itself can promote chemical reactions. I suppose my conclusions are not very...erm..conclusive, but they are based on the experience of death. There is energy that exists without the body. How can you measure that?

veinglory · 08-15-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulfull

The fact that thoughts and emotions can't be measured and are so unpredictable would give evidence that they are influenced by more then chemical reactions and that the mind itself can promote chemical reactions. I suppose my conclusions are not very...erm..conclusive, but they are based on the experience of death. There is energy that exists without the body. How can you measure that?

Thoughts and emotions can be measures because they have physical componants including brain activity and chemicals, physioloigcal stress, spoken words and actions. The correlation between these and the subjective expereinec by the subject is not perfect, but it is pretty strong -- hence the science of psychology. The fact that specific neurons fire in association with (for example) recognizing a human face suggest that they undeniably at least partially physical -- and at least potentially entirely physical.

How can 'the mind' cause chemical reactions -- as the mind is intangible (very old argument I know -- but Descartes couldn't answer it)

Bases on what experience of death? What energy exists without the body? Energy is an action of atoms, by they atoms of a body, inorganic material or air. that's why 'in space no one can here you scream. Not enough atoms so not energy (e.g. sound) can be transmitted.

Phage · 08-24-03

Space houses a different kind of energy is all.